William Bruce Mumford was convicted of treason and hanged for tearing down the United States flag from a public building of the United States after said flag was placed there by Commodore Farragut of the United States navy. Was his conviction and punishment just, in context?

>On April 25, 1862, as Union Navy ships approached Confederate New Orleans, Commodore David Farragut ordered two officers to send a message to Mayor John T. Monroe requesting removal of Confederate flags from the local customhouse, mint and city hall and their replacement with U.S. flags. Monroe refused, claiming it was beyond his jurisdiction. On April 26 Capt. Henry W. Morris sent ashore Marines from the USS Pocahontas to raise the U.S. flag over the mint. Morris did so without any order from Farragut, who was still trying to receive an official surrender from the mayor.

>As the Marines raised the flag, a number of locals gathered around in anger. The Marines told them that the Pocahontas would fire on anyone attempting to remove the flag. However, a group of seven individuals, including Mumford, decided to remove the flag from the mint. The Pocahontas fired and Mumford was injured by a flying piece of brick. With cheers from local onlookers, he carried the flag to the mayor at city hall, but onlookers tore at it as he walked, reducing it to a stub.

Given that context, I could see it. It definitely seemed to send a signal that they were not surrendering, which fits at least some definition of treason.

>>732>Given that context, I could see it. It definitely seemed to send a signal that they were not surrendering, which fits at least some definition of treason.You can't commit treason against a country that is not your own.

I think any map we look at puts New Orleans within the United States. Claiming that New Orleans isn't one of our territories is treason all on its own, so I don't think that would've held up as a defense in court.

No. But, then, it's the North, and they weren't exactly decent during that period, so it's hardly a shock that they decided to do some nasty stuff under shoddy reasoning.It's what usually happens, unfortunately, when a nation cracks down on rebels.

It's another item to throw on the rather massive heap of Northern warcrimes.

They aren't sovereign. They lost. The north conquered the south and enforced their own ideas upon them. And while they're granted many rights by their captors, another attempt at secession would be met with the same results.

>>745True. Though, they were, and so, secession and fighting for your home wasn't treason at that time.

>another attempt at secession would be met with the same results.This I doubt. Mostly because I do not think thanks to developments in information, from video to the internet, means that the North is less likely to get away with their massive pile of scorched earth warcrimes tactics they had going on last time.It's a lot easier to surrender when the alternative is literally having your homes burned down, your family's livelihood ruined, your economy completely crippled, and entire cities destroyed.

On the other hand, now a days, you try that shit, suddenly a whole lot of other powers in the world say "Hey, that's not cool", arm your rebels, and maybe even get a foot in if the thing looks spicy enough.

Fair, I couldn't guarantee success, but I still don't know that the US in general would be okay with secession, I could imagine that still resulting in war.

But then, maybe not, maybe someone tries to secede and the rest of the country is just "Good, thank god we don't have to put up with them anymore." It depends a lot on who's trying to secede and the political environment at the time.

>>752>>746Secession wouldn't be necessary if we just gave individual states more autonomy. I mean the federal government gets it's panties in a bunch even over marijuana being legal on a state level. The fed picking it's battles more and letting states have more freedom to choose some policies for themselves seems like the more reasonable solution to me.